run getdp backstage

[Lin Ji]

Hi, Christophe,
   Thank you for the advice. May I provide a little suggestion for you about
the postprocessing data format according to my experience using 'getdp'? When
we want to output the results on a regular meshing (e.g. rectangular in 2D),
we don't really need information about time steps and the position of each
point. They are redundant. We only need the solution value at these points
and in each time step. As long as you let me know the order you write the
solution (e.g. (t,y,x) or (x,y,t) in 2D), we should be able to get the
solution right. This way, it only requires 1/5 of the disk space used by
'TimeTable' and it saves time for me to input the data into for example
'matlab'.
   Also, can you give me an idea how much is the problem size increased when
I change the interpolation oreder from 1 to 2 on the same meshing? If I half
my meshing size, how much more memory does 'getdp' need for the 1st and 2nd
order respectively?
   My current computer (Sun Ultra 10) has 128Mb memory and it took 4 hours to
solve a problem with 150x300 nodes and 500 time steps using the 2nd
resolution (wave_t_ex) and 2nd order interpolation. The size of 'test.res' is
1.5Gb. However, it took 4 hours for the postprocessing (TimeTable data
format) only to finish 1/3 of the output of the result on 75x150 nodes. I
shut it down before it finished. I guess you might want to investigate it a
little bit. The postprocessing should not take longer than solveing the
problem.
   The other reason I asked you these questions is that we might want to buy
some more memory and want to have an idea how much more is enough. Thank you
for your help.

Best wishes,

Lin

-- 
Dept. of Math., RPI
518-276,2184(work)
518-271,4486(home)